Kaliszewski v. Dubail

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kaliszewski v. Dubail

471 S.W.3d 402, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1007, 2015 WL 5823956

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketED 102155

StatusPublished

This text of 471 S.W.3d 402 (Kaliszewski v. Dubail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaliszewski v. Dubail, 471 S.W.3d 402, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1007, 2015 WL 5823956 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[403]*403 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Joseph Kaliszewski (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment of the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations- Commission (“the Commission”) denying him unemployment compensation because he was an independent contractor and not an employee of Newell D. Dubail and his partners (collectively, “the Partnership”). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. -No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[403]*403 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Joseph Kaliszewski (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment of the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations- Commission (“the Commission”) denying him unemployment compensation because he was an independent contractor and not an employee of Newell D. Dubail and his partners (collectively, “the Partnership”). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. -No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.W.3d 402, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1007, 2015 WL 5823956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaliszewski-v-dubail-moctapp-2015.